Rethinking WWI

[SHaYap]

the principal importance is not 'who' started and did what or 'why' but the efforts made to better understand the situation then based on the relevant information that is now available that was not so just in the recent years ~ I believe no one is on a zealous crusade to reinvent history here ~ rather its an effort to better understand the shortcomings of modern civillised 'modern' civillisation ~ nothing can change what happened during the 'great' wars ~ but we can at least change what we know and understand or at the very least make some sense of the conditions that made such senseless madness possible ~ in lieu of the much touted intelligence of the human race ~ hopefully the human race can learn much more of what the human race knows not or what the human race claims to know ~

~ I'd post that much cliched quote of George Santayana but I think we here knows it well enough to know what I am getting at ~

[Bavarian Raven]

give it another 20 years once all those who took part have died and they'll be doing the same with World War II. already hearing politicians in the EU Parliament saying world war II should be called or reclassified as the 'European civil war' and replacing the word Germans with Nazis. yes give it time and kids will be taught, we never fought the Germans but the Nazis in a european civil war - I heard this crap on a broadcast from the EU Parliament - discussing the 'House of European History - some sort of EU Museum.

We've had two world wars, count them, thats two world wars and Germany is responsible for the two of them they mass murdered people by the millions and yet we do business with them today. 75 years later and that same country as the biggest economy in europe doing trade all over the world and yet people go on about how we shouldn't be trading and having relations with the likes of Saudi Arabia etc... but never mention German who must rank top of the table when it comes to genocide / atrocities. Germany still to this day should be under sanctions for what they done. i can never understand just how lightly they got away with it all, and then we have people trying to paint Germany in a good light. be it the first world war or second. the question then might be but how long do we hold them to account. well alot longer than 75 years.

Yawn. No one said anything here about rewriting ww2 history. No, what people are doing here is trying to make Enfland/France/Russia look like gods and the Germans like the devil in ww1, aka, trying to make Germany take all the blame. (And for ww2 she deserves most of it, in Europe anyways). No. For ww1 All the big powers are responsible for egging one another on, and Serbia for funding a terrorist organization who went on to assassinate a prince... Simple as that. No rewriting history, just representing it fairly here. Cheers.

[Space Commander Travis]

Yawn. No one said anything here about rewriting ww2 history. No, what people are doing here is trying to make Enfland/France/Russia look like gods and the Germans like the devil in ww1, aka, trying to make Germany take all the blame. (And for ww2 she deserves most of it, in Europe anyways). No. For ww1 All the big powers are responsible for egging one another on, and Serbia for funding a terrorist organization who went on to assassinate a prince... Simple as that. No rewriting history, just representing it fairly here. Cheers.

And it was precisely that attitude of "They started it, so they deserve all they get" at Versailles that led to the climate that led to ... well, know what it all led to, don't we.

[Space Commander Travis]

give it another 20 years once all those who took part have died and they'll be doing the same with World War II. already hearing politicians in the EU Parliament saying world war II should be called or reclassified as the 'European civil war' and replacing the word Germans with Nazis. yes give it time and kids will be taught, we never fought the Germans but the Nazis in a european civil war - I heard this crap on a broadcast from the EU Parliament - discussing the 'House of European History - some sort of EU Museum.

We've had two world wars, count them, thats two world wars and Germany is responsible for the two of them they mass murdered people by the millions and yet we do business with them today. 75 years later and that same country as the biggest economy in europe doing trade all over the world and yet people go on about how we shouldn't be trading and having relations with the likes of Saudi Arabia etc... but never mention German who must rank top of the table when it comes to genocide / atrocities. Germany still to this day should be under sanctions for what they done. i can never understand just how lightly they got away with it all, and then we have people trying to paint Germany in a good light. be it the first world war or second. the question then might be but how long do we hold them to account. well alot longer than 75 years.

Right, and that like worked so well after 14-18, didn't it, Holding Germany to Account and imposing retributive sanctions.

Have you ever been to Germany? I doubt it. Have you ever met any Germans, I wonder? Did you recoil from them in hate and fear?

[Frank Merton]

I must admit some surprise at the apparent residual feelings about Germany and its society in the early to mid-Twentieth century. That is ancient history and no one regrets it more than the typical modern German. While it will not do to paper over Germany's role, it also will not do to blame modern Germans for what happened or to somehow hold the German people responsible. The sins of fathers are not passed on to their children, regardless of what the OT says.

[Kaa-Tzik]

Having lived in DDR for a litttle while and having visited the "new" Germany, I have absolutely no problems with Germans. I speak reasonable German, I love German bier and wurst and other food. The people I find friendly, the countryside beautiful. As Frank says, we cannot and should not hold Germans alive today to be responsible for the actions of their ancestors, and I do not. All I have done in this thread is repeat the orthodox view of history that states that Germany has more blame than the other powers. This fact seems to upset a few posters here. I find it odd, to say the least, that they are so insistant on going against history in an obvious attempt to remove principal blame from Germany. It is clear, very clear, that is the intent, thinly hidden behind saying that all are equally responsible. Still no evidence for this is produced, nothing except personal opinion, and most curiously, no reason is yet given for this attack on history. My evidence is the evidence of history contained in countless records, my reasons for saying Germany has more responsibility are that I go with what history says, not any animosity against Germany. A pity no evidence or reasons are put forward by the "defenders of Germany" from, it seems, America.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Kaa-Tzik

[stevewinn]

Yawn. No one said anything here about rewriting ww2 history. No, what people are doing here is trying to make Enfland/France/Russia look like gods and the Germans like the devil in ww1, aka, trying to make Germany take all the blame. (And for ww2 she deserves most of it, in Europe anyways). No. For ww1 All the big powers are responsible for egging one another on, and Serbia for funding a terrorist organization who went on to assassinate a prince... Simple as that. No rewriting history, just representing it fairly here. Cheers.

Seeing how you started your reply with a yawn, simple leads me to believe you was tired, which explains the rubbish you replied with. the great powers egging one another on, in the most simplistic view and surrounded in no context whatsoever, you cannot be serious. this is why reading books will always beat googling a subject having a quick read and replying on a forum.

Has anyone read max Hastings New Book Catastrophe: Europe goes to war 1914? i've ordered it off Amazon, another one for the collection. looking forward to it.

Right, and that like worked so well after 14-18, didn't it, Holding Germany to Account and imposing retributive sanctions.

Have you ever been to Germany? I doubt it. Have you ever met any Germans, I wonder? Did you recoil from them in hate and fear?

Im surprised at you of all people trying to turn this into some sort of hatred for the German people. on my behalf absolutely out of order. in my post i point out the fact - Germany was responsible for two world wars. and voice my opinion which im entirely entitled to do that Germany after committing the atrocities associated with world war II, lets not forget where talking about a world war. not some pub fight, and in my view Germany got off lightly in the aftermath of war. its simply summed by the sentence, Britain got out of victory, what Germany got out of defeat.

and for the record i have been to Germany many times i use to go to the Kassel Show every year, so by default i have met the lovely people of Germany, - but due to commitments i have been unable to go, and last visited in November 2011. so that quashes your notion im going around - stuck in some sort of time warp still thinking were fighting the Hun, trouble is i know my history and im not going to start trying to rewrite History to avoid sensitivities, and that applies to German as in this post. history is history good or bad.

[questionmark]

Seeing how you started your reply with a yawn, simple leads me to believe you was tired, which explains the rubbish you replied with. the great powers egging one another on, in the most simplistic view and surrounded in no context whatsoever, you cannot be serious. this is why reading books will always beat googling a subject having a quick read and replying on a forum.

Has anyone read max Hastings New Book Catastrophe: Europe goes to war 1914? i've ordered it off Amazon, another one for the collection. looking forward to it.

Im surprised at you of all people trying to turn this into some sort of hatred for the German people. on my behalf absolutely out of order. in my post i point out the fact - Germany was responsible for two world wars. and voice my opinion which im entirely entitled to do that Germany after committing the atrocities associated with world war II, lets not forget where talking about a world war. not some pub fight, and in my view Germany got off lightly in the aftermath of war. its simply summed by the sentence, Britain got out of victory, what Germany got out of defeat.

and for the record i have been to Germany many times i use to go to the Kassel Show every year, so by default i have met the lovely people of Germany, - but due to commitments i have been unable to go, and last visited in November 2011. so that quashes your notion im going around - stuck in some sort of time warp still thinking were fighting the Hun, trouble is i know my history and im not going to start trying to rewrite History to avoid sensitivities, and that applies to German as in this post. history is history good or bad.

Hatred for German people? nah,as long as they stand in sack and ash assuming responsibility for something they do not have nobody hates them. In fact,we all love them because it detracts from our responsibility.

[Kaa-Tzik]

Petty comments to put words in peoples mouths and to twist what has been said, but still no reasons for wanting to absolve Germany from the greater blame and no evidence to support any such personal opinion. Seems that while some in this forum are shouted at and bullied to provide their sources, those who do the bullying are excempt from this when it comes to their opinions. I'm not surprised by this, and I know that a number of posters tire of this nonsense by a few know it alls.

[Space Commander Travis]

Edited January 15, 2014 by Colonel Rhubarb

[Space Commander Travis]

Just to clarify, I was going to say something but decided it wasn't strictly pertinent, and, in the absence of the ability to delete posts, an emoticon will have to serve.

[Leonardo]

Petty comments to put words in peoples mouths and to twist what has been said, but still no reasons for wanting to absolve Germany from the greater blame...

The 'Germany' that had any responsibility for initiating the conflict no longer exists, so there is no longer any party to "absolve" anything of.

[Kaa-Tzik]

The 'Germany' that had any responsibility for initiating the conflict no longer exists, so there is no longer any party to "absolve" anything of.

You should read my posts before making a comment like that. I have clearly stated that modern Germany and Germans have no responsibility for the actions of their ancestors. You to seem to dislike the idea that Germany had prime responsibilty for WWI, if so, why?

[Leonardo]

You should read my posts before making a comment like that. I have clearly stated that modern Germany and Germans have no responsibility for the actions of their ancestors. You to seem to dislike the idea that Germany had prime responsibilty for WWI, if so, why?

Bismarck's Germany under Wilhelm II was no more or less imperialistic in it's ambitions than England was under a long line of rulers, or indeed Russia under Peter the Great. While I appreciate this thread is about WWI, and the German part in that conflict, it seems there is greater emphasis put on 'blame' for the German intitiation of that conflict, than there is made in regards many other imperialistic campaigners.

This may be down to it's more recent history, but I still find the bias in emphasis rather prejudicial, in any case.

[Kaa-Tzik]

Bismarck's Germany under Wilhelm II was no more or less imperialistic in it's ambitions than England was under a long line of rulers, or indeed Russia under Peter the Great. While I appreciate this thread is about WWI, and the German part in that conflict, it seems there is greater emphasis put on 'blame' for the German intitiation of that conflict, than there is made in regards many other imperialistic campaigners.

This may be down to it's more recent history, but I still find the bias in emphasis rather prejudicial, in any case.

Hmm, this is not about "imperialism", why jump at my use of that word when it is clear I used it to differentiate the Germany of 1914 from Nazi Germany and from modern Germany, is it not obvious that was my intent. That you find an acceptance of orthodox history as "rather prejudicial" is astonishing. Maybe you are one of those who think history is merely an opinion. Well, in another thread I have said that to gain an understanding of events in the more distant past, then archeology is a better tool that history. The reason is that the further we go back, the more unreliable the written evidence becomes, and in many cases has dissapeared, if it existed in the first place. Yet we are not dealing with events of the distant past, we are dealing with events still just within the lifetimes of the very old. Of events that have a huge amount of documention, in paper, in film and in the recorded interviews, voice only or film and voice, made of those you lived through those times. Do you, with one other poster here, seriously suggest that it is all over turned for an opinion, an opinion that is never explained, never given any sources for. Look, history tells us that the Germans were defeated at Stalingrad, is that a fact or an opinion?. Here archeology cannot help, for though it will show a battle was fought, it cannot conclusively show who has won. Do we deal in fact here, or opinion.

[Leonardo]

Hmm, this is not about "imperialism"

I'm sorry, but the premise surrounding the reasons for WWI starting is all about imperialism on the part of Germany. However, take away the fact of the multiple treaties that existed between various European nations at the time, and Germany's imperialist ambitions would have instigated a limited conflict.

That the conflict snowballed into such an all encompassing 'World War' is largely down to those treaties. The aggressive actions of Germany were simply a catalyst.

And the prejudice I referred to is the general attitude directed towards Germany regarding their involvement in this conflict when compared to the general attitude towards, say, England (Britain) or Russia for their imperialist campaigns.

[Kaa-Tzik]

I'm sorry, but the premise surrounding the reasons for WWI starting is all about imperialism on the part of Germany. However, take away the fact of the multiple treaties that existed between various European nations at the time, and Germany's imperialist ambitions would have instigated a limited conflict.

That the conflict snowballed into such an all encompassing 'World War' is largely down to those treaties. The aggressive actions of Germany were simply a catalyst.

And the prejudice I referred to is the general attitude directed towards Germany regarding their involvement in this conflict when compared to the general attitude towards, say, England (Britain) or Russia for their imperialist campaigns.

You seem to be deliberately twisting my use of the word "imperialist", why?. And to say that Germany gets a raw deal compared to Russia is laughable as this forum is full of reptiles who are Russophobic and generally Slavophobic to an extreme degree.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Kaa-Tzik

[Peter B]

While I don't give much about Wiki as primary source, it also says that the Schlieffen plan was circulated.

Yes it does.

Nevertheless could you please provide evidence that the French military were aware of the specifics of the Schlieffen Plan as you imply in post #114.

[Peter B]

From your link:

The Russians had warning -- the Turkish torpedo boats Mouavenet and Gairet had already attacked Odessa, sinking the old gunboat Donetz and damaging several other ships. So as Goeben steamed into range of the coast defense batteries at Sevastopol, they opened fire without hesitation. In the action that followed, Goeben fired 47 shells from her main battery, damaging a few buildings ashore, principally a hospital in return, she was hit three times by the shore batteries, forcing her to withdraw under cover of a smoke screen laid by her two attendant Turkish torpedo boats. It was the Germans' first taste of Russian gunfire, and its accuracy was an unpleasant surprise.

So, the Russians attacked the boats before any of those boats opened fire... call it whatever you want.

The Russians say that the Turks attacked Odessa first, the Turks say that they attacked Odessa after the Goeben was attacked. And I still don't see any mention of any (real) Turkish boat (VS fake like the two German cruisers) anywhere near Sevastopol.

You don't see any mention of any real Turkish boats anywhere near Sevastopol? How about the article we've now both quoted: "Goeben fired 47 shells from her main battery...she was hit three times by the shore batteries, forcing her to withdraw under cover of a smoke screen laid by her two attendant Turkish torpedo boats." On top of that, the Turkish document you quote in post #117 mentions the Turkish torpedo boats Gairet-i-Millet and Mouavenet-i-Millet as being present at that opening battle.

As for your mention of the German cruisers as "fake" Turkish warships, they were sailing under Turkish flags, and the Turkish government had rebuffed complaints from the Allied powers about their presence in Istanbul on the grounds that they were now Turkish warships (http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/comment/morgenthau/Morgen05.htm near the end). Yes, it was a complete pretence, but the fact that they flew Turkish flags meant that Turkey was responsible for how they were used.

[Peter B]

"While on the 27th of October a small part of the Turkish fleet was maneuvering on the Black Sea, the Russian fleet, which at first confined its activities to following and hindering every one of our movements, finally, on the 29th, unexpectedly began hostilities by at-tacking the Ottoman fleet. During the naval battle which ensued the Turkish fleet, with the help of the Almighty, sank the mine layer Pruth, inflicted severe damage on one of the Russian torpedo boats, and captured a collier. A torpedo from the Turkish torpedo boat Gairet-i-Millet sank the Russian destroyer Koubanietz, and another from the Turkish torpedo boat Mouavenet-i-Millet inflicted serious damage on a Russian coast guard ship. Three officers and seventy-two sailors rescued by our men and belonging to the crews of the damaged and sunken vessels of the Russian fleet have been made prisoners. The Ottoman Imperial Fleet, glory be given to the Almighty, escaped injury, and the battle is progressing favorably for us. Information received from our fleet, now in the Black Sea, is as follows:

"From accounts of Russian sailors taken prisoners, and, from the presence of a mine layer among the Russian fleet, evidence is gathered that the Russian fleet intended closing the entrance to the Bosporus with mines, and destroying entirely the Imperial Ottoman fleet, after having split it in two. Our fleet, believing that it had to face an unexpected at-tack, and supposing that the Russians had be-gun hostilities without a formal declaration of war, pursued the scattered Russian fleet, bombarded the port of Sebastopol, destroyed in the city of Novorossisk fifty petroleum depots, fourteen military transports, some granaries, and the wireless telegraph station. In addition to the above our fleet has sunk in Odessa a Russian cruiser, and damaged severely an-other. It is believed that this second boat was likewise sunk. Five other steamers full of cargoes lying in the same port were seriously damaged. A steamship belonging to the Russian volunteer fleet was also sunk, and five petroleum depots were destroyed. In Odessa and Sebastopol the Russians from the shore opened fire against our fleet."

The Sultan at once declared war against Russia, England and France, and issued a proclamation to his troops, declaring that he had called them to arms to resist aggression and that "the very existence of our Empire and of three hundred million Moslems whom I have summoned by sacred Fetwa to a supreme struggle, depend on your victory. Do not for-get that you are brothers in arms of the strongest and bravest armies of the world, with whom we are now fighting shoulder to shoulder."

from the Turkish declaration of war

Thank you for providing this document. However I'm moved to ask how reliable it should be considered. Given that Russia had already suffered two major defeats at the hands of Germany (Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes) in September 1914, and would thus require additional troops to face the Germans and Austrians, what did Russia have to gain by opening a new front in the Caucasus? Additionally, going to war with Turkey would prevent Britain and France from sending supplies to Russia through the Bosporus. In other words, why would Russia provoke a war with Turkey when it had its hands full with Germany and Austria?

On top of that, Admiral Souchon, the commander of the Goeben and Breslau, said on 6 August, while his ships were still coaling in Italy, that he intended to go to Istanbul "...to force the Ottoman Empire, even against their will, to spread the war to the Black Sea against their ancient enemy, Russia..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pursuit_of_Goeben_and_Breslau#Pursuit).

Given Russia's strategic situation and Souchon's statement of intent, I think the most believable explanation for the events of 29 October is that Souchon's warships initiated military action against Russia, not the other way around.

[Leonardo]

Thank you for providing this document. However I'm moved to ask how reliable it should be considered. Given that Russia had already suffered two major defeats at the hands of Germany (Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes) in September 1914, and would thus require additional troops to face the Germans and Austrians, what did Russia have to gain by opening a new front in the Caucasus? Additionally, going to war with Turkey would prevent Britain and France from sending supplies to Russia through the Bosporus. In other words, why would Russia provoke a war with Turkey when it had its hands full with Germany and Austria?

On top of that, Admiral Souchon, the commander of the Goeben and Breslau, said on 6 August, while his ships were still coaling in Italy, that he intended to go to Istanbul "...to force the Ottoman Empire, even against their will, to spread the war to the Black Sea against their ancient enemy, Russia..." (http://en.wikipedia....Breslau#Pursuit).

Given Russia's strategic situation and Souchon's statement of intent, I think the most believable explanation for the events of 29 October is that Souchon's warships initiated military action against Russia, not the other way around.

Who is to say that, if the Russians did fire first, it was part of a comprehensive strategy?

Why not consider it was a rogue action, or a mistake, that snowballed into the declarations of war?

Edited January 17, 2014 by Leonardo

[questionmark]

Who is to say that, if the Russians did fire first, it was part of a comprehensive strategy?

Why not consider it was a rogue action, or a mistake, that snowballed into the declarations of war?

Well, according to those sailors the Turks captured, if they wanted to mine the Bosporus that would hardly have been a rouge action.

Surely it was in the interest of Germany to open another front, but the Turks were not so eager to play as they knew they were not ready to defend their whole territory, as seen after Gallipoli, where they put up what they had and ran out of steam (though that was enough for the allies not to try again).

[Leonardo]

Well, according to those sailors the Turks captured, if they wanted to mine the Bosporus that would hardly have been a rouge action.

Surely it was in the interest of Germany to open another front, but the Turks were not so eager to play as they knew they were not ready to defend their whole territory, as seen after Gallipoli, where they put up what they had and ran out of steam (though that was enough for the allies not to try again).

I don't deny the Germans had a vested interest in getting the Russians and Turks fighting, but what is central to this part of the debate is why the Russians would have opened fire on the Turks (assuming hypothetically the Russians fired first.)

All I stressed to Peter B. was that the premise it was foolish on the grounds of being a strategic mistake does not mean it couldn't happen, or even was less likely to happen than any other scenario.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Leonardo

[questionmark]

related story:

Culpability Question Divides Historians Today